Hi Minko,

Question about the Finalize section:

Actions in the finalize section modify only the element for the current executed element type definition. The continue or continue with_actions statements continue to work with the element but without any action of the finalize section applied.

Correct.

What about continue for some lines that needs to be processed in the polygon style, like highway=* & area=yes (pedestrian, service etc). Are the finalize actions not applied?

The finalize actions are applied only the current executed element type definition. So if a polygon style rule with an element type defintition matches the finalize actions of the polygon style are applied. I'll try an example: highway=pedestrian, area=yes, name=Shopping street lines: highway=pedestrian [0x16 road_class=0 road_speed=0 resolution 22 continue] <finalize> name=* { name '${name}' } polygons: highway=pedestrian & area=yes [0x17 resolution 22] <finalize> name=* { name 'Polygon ${name}' } There will be two objects in the Garmin map: 1: line 0x16, name 'Shopping street' 2: polygon 0x17, name 'Polygon Shopping street'

Please note that in the default style pedestrian areas are not routable:

highway=pedestrian & area!=yes [0x16 road_class=0 road_speed=0 resolution 22]

Yes, seems so.

Is this intended? Shouldn't we remove area!=yes from this rule? Better would be this: highway=pedestrian [0x16 road_class=0 road_speed=0 resolution 22 continue]

But then it conflicts with "statements continue to work with the element but without any action of the finalize section applied"?

I don't understand why it conflict with the continue handling of the finalize sections. But I think the way is handled the same in trunk and in branch so I it's not a problem of the mergeroads branch. After merging we might change the style so that pedestrian areas are routable. @Others: what's your opinion? WanMil

...

...

But then it conflicts with "statements continue to work with the

...

...

element but without any action of the finalize section applied"?

I don't understand why it conflict with the continue handling of the finalize sections. But I think the way is handled the same in trunk and in branch so I it's not a problem of the mergeroads branch. Yes, I have also noticed 'continue' still works as expected. So maybe it's better to skip or change this text "statements continue to work with the element but without any action of the finalize section applied" in the document because it is confusing what you meant by this.

I think it must be clarified in the documentation that actions in the finalize section are "not persistent" in terms of the continue or continue with_actions statement. I would be happy if you can post a changed text that describes it more clearly! Thanks! WanMil

Can you please phrase it so that people not so familiar with the terminology are not confused or put on the wrong track? As a start, I would suggest trying to word it without the use of quotation marks, which instantly imply that you need to understand what those words ("not persistent") mean in this particular context. Colin On 2013-12-22 16:13, Minko wrote:

Ah now I understand what you mean.

Just change it into "Please note that actions in the finalize section are "not persistent" in terms of the continue or continue with_actions statement"

...

I think it must be clarified in the documentation that actions in the finalize section are "not persistent" in terms of the continue or continue with_actions statement. I would be happy if you can post a changed text that describes it more clearly! Thanks! WanMil

_______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev [1]

Links: ------ [1] http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev